Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 10, 2010 1:21pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

This is from the original credits found on Google Video:

http://i1018.photobucket.com/albums/af309/skybandit/Gog/Gogcopyrightnoticeexampleofothercredits2.jpg

This is the credit screenshot showing copyright:
http://i1018.photobucket.com/albums/af309/skybandit/Gog/Gogcopyrightnoticeexampleofothercredits1.jpg

The different backgrounds and different fonts seem to indicate that the second was, indeed, added later, possibly for the DVD release. Again, all the copyright data may apply to the 3D version, and somebody forgot to transfer them to the 2D copy way back when. I once heard that "Night of the Living Dead" became PD when 16mm prints were mastered for lower eschelon theaters and the copyright notice was left off, which is part of the reason PD copies are low-quality. Anyone ever seen this thing in more that two dimensions?

This post was modified by skybandit on 2010-12-10 21:21:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Dec 10, 2010 11:47pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

The screen cap with the notice is from the "restored" flat version of the original 3d version of the film, which was originally presented in a 1.66:1 ratio. The version uploaded here without notice is the "flat" version that was made and released just after the original 3d release (this was presented in the 1.85:1 ratio).

Even if someone argued that the original flat version of the film was PD due to omission of notice, it is technically a derivative work and falls under the prior, enforcable copyright of the 3d version.

Re NOTLD: That film lost its copyright due to a last minute title change prior to release. The original title and copyright notice were removed, but only the title was replaced putting the film into the PD on release.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 11, 2010 4:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Great to have the facts on this film. I read somewhere, maybe IMDb (maybe not), that by its 1954 release the 3D craze had actually peaked and was passing and that the film didn't show much at all in 3D.

The Google copy claims to have come originally from IA some two years ago. Does anyone recall a prior take down notice?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 11, 2010 5:35am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Thanks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 11, 2010 9:25pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

“Even if someone argued that the original flat version of the film was PD due to omission of notice, it is technically a derivative work and falls under the prior, enforcable copyright of the 3d version.”…IF the 3D version had a copyright notice, a question we can’t seem to get answered! :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 12, 2010 7:04am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Good point.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 13, 2010 7:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Better safe than sorry and all that. I'm a nice guy, so I nicked my new DVD version from Google instead of here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Dec 13, 2010 7:12pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

"Re NOTLD: That film lost its copyright due to a last minute title change prior to release. The original title and copyright notice were removed, but only the title was replaced putting the film into the PD on release."
Once again proving that not everything I've heard is true. Thanks for weighing in on this, the flames were beginning to burn! :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Dec 10, 2010 3:02pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

Just noticed that Gog has been at Google Video for 2 years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kimpunkrock Date: Dec 13, 2010 1:21am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

yes because the company claiming copyright doesnt own said film. It is a FAKE copyright claim.

Get a life loser.

I cant stand little bosy bodied idiots like yourself that go around looking for films to pull from archive.org, esp older ones.

screw u.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Dec 10, 2010 4:02pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

I wonder what the print at Sinister Cinema looks like. Might just check that out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Dec 10, 2010 2:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: A Thousand Words

This is a good way to approach it, I think. I just rewatched Netflix and, though the fonts looked alike to me, I'll have to defer to you and others on that.

The colors and background are noticeably dissimilar. But, then again the beginning shows the same difference compared to "The End" page, that is, they don't match either.

Are you pretty confident that your VHS copy is an Ivan Tors/UA original?

This is an edit: Sorry, I found your post where you said you taped your copy off the TV.

This post was modified by elmagno on 2010-12-10 22:33:02